All the 9X windows are shells on top of MS-DOS... Windows had two lines for a while... there was windows 3.0 and then Windows 3.11 for workgroups that started the NT lineup that ended with Windows 2000 Professional.  With XP the 9X and NT lineup were combined into a single product.  The compatability problems with Vista and XP are very simple, but impossible to fix... a simple version number change from Windows 5.0 to Windows 6.0... Windows 7 will still be Windows 6.X, but that is just to keep from breaking compatibility.

 You're really out of the loop... ME/2000?  ME was part of the 9X lineup and 2000 part of NT that started with 3.11 and people if you could... ditch the wikipedia... it's not a referance site.. use the referances on Wikipedia to help you... anyone can put anything on that site

I made the mistake of giving MS money for Vista once, buying an OEM copy of Ultimate, and will never, ever make that mistake again. This endless crap where they provide the worst possible version of the OS with horrid functionality and stupid limits then ask for 200 dollars to get the "full" version of the OS after you already have all your stuff on the PC is just insane. Why should Home Basic limit you to just a few GBs of RAM and less processors then your computer has? Why should you not be able to secure your information with something like bitlocker unless you buy the 300+ dollar version of the OS? Why should the OS be the most expensive part of your computer even if you are making a high end machine (retail i7 processor 300 dollars, retail 285 high end NVIDIA card, 300 dollars, High end intel motherboard? 300 dollars, Vista Ultimate? Almost 400 bucks!)?

Some have derided the OSX model which is basically you pay 99 bucks every few years for the new version (which is always the full featured version, the equivalent to ultimate) and you can install it with no activation, no genuine checks none of that. Not only that but with one retail version you can install on 5 macs with no problem (if you just split it with 5 other mac users thats 20 bucks per upgrade) and they don't harass you or make you call a number and get a code if you try to reinstall the OS. It's just so seamless and easy I don't know how in the world so many can defend the alternative. As a bonus the iwork suite with almost all the functions of Office (including Keynote which is VASTLY superior to powerpoint) costs 49 bucks vs what? 500+ bucks for Office?

Microsoft is greedy and enforces their standards through pointless gimmicks (like the nearly free but useless basic versions of their OS to bilk money out later) and inferior proprietary standards they force on partners like .net (an inferior Java) and direct X (an inferior open GL).

This starter edition on the PC you buy seems to be about the same as a mob guy coming to your store and saying "wow all your stuff here sure looks nice, I'm sure you'd like to keep it that way for 200 bucks."

As a final thing for all those saying Windows 7 is the second coming it IS vista. It is virtually identical in every way, it is Vista SP 2 with a different name. It ripped off the OSX dock, installs a little faster and doesn't include those crappy Microsoft ilife like programs but other then that its the same OS. Same control panel, same underpinnings, same drivers, same everything. It is 96% the same OS just like from XP SP1 to XP SP2 only 4% changed. The difference is they're going to AGAIN ask for 400 dollars to upgrade Vista SP1 ultimate to "Windows 7" also known as SP2. It should be offered free to those idiots who bought Vista like me, or at the very least for a cheap upgrade price (say 99 dollars for 5 machines).

 Are you retarded?  Windows 7 is an entirely new Kernal.  Just because the front end resembles Vista doesn't make it Vista... just like my Firefox looks just like my IE 8.0 doesn't make it IE.  And calling Direct X inferior to the defunct OpenGL is insane.  If it wasn't for Direct X you'd still be manually installing every f'n driver like you were using NT 4.0.  As for the RAM limit... I seriouslly doubt anyone who goes out an buys a PC with Vista Home is going to have more than 4 gigs of ram.  As and end note... Vista Ultimate was for enthusiest who wanted all the benefits of Home Professional and the Enterprise version in one... you don't need all the stuff unless you work at home and use your system for entertainment to.

By the way, there's an amazing photoshop concerning windows multiple versions, but it might ignite a fire or two... I wonder if I should post it...

I would get Windows 7 Ultimate so I can do what I want....I dont have 2.8GHz Dual Core CPU, 4GB RAM & 256MB Video Card so I am limited to what I can do.

Wasn't vista ultimate something like four hundred smackers?

edit: it's gone down in price, 180 bucks now.

   Hard to say Open GL is defunct when more then 70% of software sold uses it (a good number of PC games still, all mac games, all Linux games, every game for all Nintendo and Sony systems).  The 30% (xbox games and most windows only games) that use direct X seem to be pretty heavily in the minority.  It's like talking about the defunct Flash now that Silverlight is out without anything near a plurality of the market.  I never even had to know what a sound or video driver was running games on the entirely Open GL mac until I installed Windows on my mac in 2005.  Everything just worked with absolutely no issues (as still is the case with mac versions of games like Call of Duty 4, Spore or World of Warcraft).  Almost everything runs on Open GL, Windows games and the Xbox are the exception not the rule.

   As to the Kernel http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2008/05/ms-no-new-kernel-for-windows-7-same-requirements-as-vista.ars the headline of that article from arstechnica is "MS No New Kernel for Windows 7" which seems pretty straight forward.

   As to the arguement that noone with home has more then 4 Gigs of RAM anyway, why should it cost 400 dollars (Ultimate retail price) to get an OS that can address 200 dollars in RAM (6 high speed 2GB DIMs)?  Why should it cost as much if not more to buy a more expensive version of windows due to artificial locks then it does to actually upgrade the hardware?  That Ultimate should cost more then a quad core processor and 12 gigs of RAM (which, if you pay retail on both, it does) is pretty innane. 

   It also ensures that you don't have easy scalability without paying through the nose.  I remember two years ago when 4GBs was a lot, now most computers (even notebooks) come with 2GBs standard if they're cheap and 4GBs if they're mid range or higher.  Does anyone think that in another 2 years 8GBs or 12GBs won't be the new standard?  why should someone be forced to pay again for the same OS just because their hardware has evolved?  If you pay 99 dollars for OSX it doesn't care if you have 1 core of 16, it will use them all without complaint or ransom, ditto for RAM.  That MS uses hardware improvements to extort money from end users is sickening just like the high way robery that is 150+ dollars for a 120GB hard drive on the Xbox.  I paid 120 dollars for my last hard drive and it had 1.5 TBs of space, last year 120 dollars got me a 500GB drive for my PS3 from segate. 

They get you in with a cheap opening option and then try to screw you into paying huge multi hundred dollar upgrade fees at every turn, thats the MS way and it seems with Windows 7 nothing has changed.  More power to the community in emulating direct X  and .net (wine, to make games and programs that are "windows only" work on other Unix platforms) and even directly pirating more advanced versions of Windows for those who got saddled with a cheap version on whatever computer they bought.

   180 bucks is OEM with a bunch of serious strings attatched.  I bought Ultimate that way and it only came with 32 bit (even though Ultimate is billed as coming with both 64 and 32 bit) and can only be installed on one machine.  You can't even upgrade that one machine since changing anything more then basic components like RAM equals a brand new machine which you can't use the same OEM copy on.  Upgrade the processor and there's a decent chance your machine is "new" even thoguh 80% of your components are identical.

    I've actually been forced to find pirate versions and work arounds to get the 64 bit version going since they make the billed 64 bit CD if you have 32 bit upgrade program such a pain in the ass its almost impossible to use (and its even worse because they have the worst Indian tech suport known to mankind).  So yah I'm playing cracked games (bought the games in box but don't want to swap DVDs constantly) on a pirated Vista Ultimate (despite owning a copy of Vista Ultimate which MS has decided is no longer worthy) and really dreading another go around with Vista SP2...I mean Windows 7.

  Again why is a 99 dollar version with all the features that works on a wide range of hardware too much to ask?  Apple makes a superior OS for that price, hell, Linux is almost as good and doesn't even cost 99 bucks.

Dude, there are two different versions of each Vista edition.  One for 32 bit and one for 64 bit.   You obviously bought the 32 bit version of Vista Ultimate. LOL.  Looks like you are one of those people who spends money on things and doesn't read anything about it.  And when it is something that costs like $200 that makes it even more mind boggling.  What do you need Windows Ultimate for anyway?  IIS?